quentron.com

[sarkeizen]

it was exceptionaly formal @sarkeizen.the way i bridged the gap between textbooks and this website by throwing down a nernstian

A formal argument as defined to you many times is a series of statements where each one forces the next.  That is, there is no possible other conclusion. It must, in this case start with your cite and end with your conclusion "therefore textbooks necessitate the existence of and ability to build a battery which will power an ipod-like device continually and eternally". 

You have provided:

a) No useful cite
b) No series of statements which force each other and end with the aforementioned conclusion.

Hence you have provided no formal argument.   Which is probably the only reason why this argument is still ongoing.  Because you know you would lose.  If you provided the things I've been asking for months.

[profitis]

its time for you to re-examine info theory @sarkeizen. Nernst equation forces equal pressure gas conc cell forces spontaneous reversable thermodynamics. Or in short: gaseous electrochemical entropy trumps kelvin entropy and then vice versa.

[sarkeizen]

its time for you to re-examine info theory @sarkeizen. Nernst equation forces equal pressure gas conc cell forces spontaneous reversable thermodynamics. Or in short: gaseous electrochemical entropy trumps kelvin entropy and then vice versa.

This is not a cite or a formal argument.  You have not provided either in the past. So there is literally no argument for me to address.  When you figure out how to make an argument that actually furthers your point let me know...

Hint: I've defined it about four times, once was just minutes ago.

[profitis]

@sarkeizen.i disagree.you have absolutely no choice but to show a discontinuity line and inaccommodation between textbooks and the entire class of gaseous electrochemical spillover cells and their cyclical thermodynamics.

[sarkeizen]

@sarkeizen.i stupidly disagree because I am trying to change the subject.

You may disagree but...

i) If you had provided the formal argument you could point out exactly where you did that.  However you can't.
ii) If I doubted you, you could simply repost the same arguments.  However you can't.
iii) If I doubted what you post is, in fact a formal argument.  You could point out how it is a series of statements beginning with your (currently non-existent) cite and ending with your conclusion.  However you can't.

So you have provided no reason to believe that you have presented a formal argument. So there is nothing for me to respond to.